Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, January 04, 2016, 16:48 (3035 days ago) @ David Turell

David: You want a logical God, but He may not fit your requirements. Is the universe logical, if we assume its enormous expanse is just for life on Earth?
dhw: No, it is not logical. That is another very good reason for doubting your assumption that the universe was specially created for our sake. I do not “want” a logical God. I want a logical explanation for life and evolution, whether it entails a God or no God.
DAVID: But you are asking for human logic. Must that be the same as God's logic?

So your arguments don't make logical sense to you, but you reckon your God thinks as you do.
 
dhw: Your logic in putting the theistic case for design against atheistic chance has always seemed to me impeccable. However, when it comes to reading your God's mind in relation to the history of the universe and evolution, suddenly logic doesn't matter.
DAVID: I start with what we see and work backwards. There is no other way to approach an understanding of the history. Humans are here, but obviously not required. They are obviously a special advance in complexity (different in kind, not degree).-The duckbilled platypus is here but obviously not required. All organisms subsequent to bacteria are obviously a special advance in complexity, as indeed is the weaverbird's nest (why else, according to you, would God need to design it himself?), and by definition all species are different in kind. -DAVID: If we are the only life, then God exists, is the viewpoint I follow.
dhw: Strangely enough, my theistic self could easily accommodate extraterrestrial life within the picture. Why would God confine his experiments to a single planet? 
DAVID: Why not?-You have missed the point. If we are not the only life, that does not mean God does not exist. He could easily have experimented elsewhere.-dhw: I still don't understand how the specially, divinely designed weaverbird's nest (plus the parasitic wasp and jellyfish and the ”hundreds of other examples”) provides “consumable energy requirement plant or animal” for humans.
DAVID: I admit I don't know either, but my method of analysis, described above, doesn't require it.-Perhaps the reason why you don't know is that it doesn't make sense and so there has to be another explanation. -dhw: However, you have agreed that this whole higgledy-piggledy history could logically be explained by your God having engineered a free-for-all and hit on the idea of humans later on, or having wanted humans right from the start and just messing things up until he finally hit the jackpot.
DAVID: I've agreed this theory is possible, not probable, since we have no way of knowing, looking back at what resulted.-As a mere human being, may I suggest it is more logical than the suggestion that the weaverbird's nest is essential for the production and feeding of humans though you haven't a clue why.
 
dhw: The trouble is, we must only use logic if we are discussing the odds for and against chance, or if it coincides with ID and anthropocentrism!
DAVID: Again, whose logic? Is God's logic the same as ours? My logical view is certainly not yours.-You have admitted that your ”logical view” concerning the weaverbird's nest is not logical (how can it be if you can't fit it into your hypothesis?) but you don't care. And indeed why should you? Human logic and science have so far failed to solve all the mysteries we have been discussing, and so you must either join me on the fence or, like the materialist atheist, dispense with logic and commit yourself to faith until the answers are known - which may never happen.